Pollster and political pundit Mark Penn has voiced concerns over the moderation of the 2024 presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Penn, a former close aide to the Clintons, expressed doubts about ABC's impartiality during the debate, suggesting that the network may have influenced the outcome in favor of Harris and called for an internal investigation to determine whether there was any deliberate bias on the part of the network, as the Post Millennial reports.

The debate, which was moderated by ABC's David Muir and Linsey Davis, has come under scrutiny from commentators who observed that Harris was allowed to dodge questions, while Trump faced more direct challenges.

Muir and Davis fact-checked Trump throughout the debate, particularly on his policy claims and accusations. However, there was a notable absence of similar fact-checking when it came to Harris’ responses, which raised suspicions about the network’s role in shaping the narrative.

Penn Suggests External Investigation

In response to what he sees as potential bias, Penn suggested that an external investigation be conducted by an independent law firm. He argued that reviewing the network's internal texts and emails would be essential in determining whether there was a coordinated effort to favor one candidate over the other.

"I actually think they should do a full internal investigation, hire an outside law firm," Penn stated on the John Solomon Reports podcast. He emphasized that the investigation should focus on how much, if anything, was planned in advance and whether ABC’s moderators intended to fact-check only one of the candidates.

Penn further speculated that Harris' campaign may have been privy to some of ABC's strategies before the debate. "I don't know what they told the Harris campaign," he said. "The day after, suspicion here is really quite high."

Harris Dodges Debate Questions

The moderators' treatment of the candidates was also noted by CNN host Jake Tapper, who observed that Harris often sidestepped questions during the debate. This was a point of curiosity for Penn, who claimed that while Trump faced a rigorous fact-checking process, Harris was given more leeway in her responses.

Commentators across various networks echoed similar sentiments, noting that Harris' debate performance appeared more polished due to the lack of scrutiny compared to Trump. Despite this, a Reuters poll indicated that Trump resonated more with undecided voters, who deemed him the winner of the debate.

Trump Refuses to Participate in Future Debate

Following the debate, Trump announced that he would not participate in a third debate with Harris, citing concerns about biased moderation. This decision adds further weight to Penn's call for an investigation into ABC's role in the debate, as Trump’s camp appears to believe that the network's handling of the event was unfair.

In the broader context of the election, Penn argued that the media's portrayal of Harris has been overwhelmingly favorable. He described the general coverage as "laughable," suggesting that the mainstream press has been overly lenient toward Harris while being harsher on Trump. Penn suggested that if media outlets continue to tip the scales, it will be difficult for voters to get an accurate picture of both candidates.

Penn Highlights Bias In Media Coverage

"It's a 50-50 race," Penn said, highlighting the close nature of the 2024 presidential contest. He suggested that Trump, despite facing intense media scrutiny, has more tools at his disposal to succeed. According to Penn, the issue lies in the referees, referring to the media, having their "finger on the scale," which makes it harder for Trump to break through.

He continued, "If the referees have their finger on the scale, it's harder to, you know, break through and overcome." Penn believes that unbiased coverage is essential for a fair election and that without it, candidates like Trump face additional hurdles in reaching voters.

Recommendations for Trump’s Campaign

In addition to calling for an investigation into ABC's moderation, Penn offered strategic advice to Trump's campaign.

He recommended that Trump highlight certain issues that Harris has supported, such as her stance on taxpayer-funded sex change operations for prisoners and her support for defunding U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

According to Penn, distributing the ACLU survey, where Harris expressed support for these policies, could be an effective tool in differentiating Trump’s platform from Harris’.

Conclusion: The Need for a Thorough Accounting

In conclusion, Mark Penn’s call for an independent investigation into ABC’s handling of the 2024 Trump-Harris debate underscores broader concerns about media bias in the current election.

From allegations of moderators favoring Harris to Penn’s critiques of mainstream coverage, the debate’s aftermath has fueled ongoing discussions about fairness in political media.

Penn’s concerns, combined with Trump’s decision to skip future debates, signal a contentious lead-up to the next phase of the presidential race.

Whether an investigation occurs or not, the issue of media impartiality will remain a focal point as the election draws closer.